Tink's performance in The New York Times

[Daniel Meyer]

Noted. As an academic and expert on rationality, I would hope you have noticed that there have been no shortage of individuals who have made contributions to rationality and science in specific areas while at the same time holding superstitious/irrational views on other subjects, from classical antiquity to modern times. Not being a psychologist, perhaps some caution might be appropriate in assigning specific motives to other individuals when you perceive them to have moments when their rationality does not reach your personal standards.

quote name='Daniel Meyer' date='24 November 2011 - 09:35 PM' timestamp='1322188528' post='238831']

If anyone can translate the above

into plain english

I WILL GIVE YOU FIFTY BUCKS!

Mr. Carroll:

I apologize if my writing is confusing.

1)Dr Fetzer stated in his reply to me that he was an expert on rationality. For the purposes of my reply, I accepted his statement.

2) I noted that some people can be rational and contribute to human knowledge while still having beliefs which most other people would consider irrational. (For example: Pythagoras stating that the squares on the legs of a right triangle add up to the square on the hypotenuse, and eating beans is sinful.)

3) Dr. Fetzer stated he is not a psychologist.

4) An unstated assumption was that psychologists may deal in topics relating to human irrationality.

5) Since Dr. Fetzer considers himself expert in rationality but not psychology, I respectfully suggest he not jump to ascribing motives to people when they say something he does not consider rational.

I ask for no monetary compensation. I hope this is now clear enough for you to puzzle out.

Thanks for your attention. -- D.M.

[William Kelly]

Noted. As an academic and expert on rationality, I would hope you have noticed that there have been no shortage of individuals who have made contributions to rationality and science in specific areas while at the same time holding superstitious/irrational views on other subjects, from classical antiquity to modern times. Not being a psychologist, perhaps some caution might be appropriate in assigning specific motives to other individuals when you perceive them to have moments when their rationality does not reach your personal standards.

quote name='Daniel Meyer' date='24 November 2011 - 09:35 PM' timestamp='1322188528' post='238831']

If anyone can translate the above

into plain english

I WILL GIVE YOU FIFTY BUCKS!

Mr. Carroll:

I apologize if my writing is confusing.

1)Dr Fetzer stated in his reply to me that he was an expert on rationality. For the purposes of my reply, I accepted his statement.

2) I noted that some people can be rational and contribute to human knowledge while still having beliefs which most other people would consider irrational. (For example: Pythagoras stating that the squares on the legs of a right triangle add up to the square on the hypotenuse, and eating beans is sinful.)

3) Dr. Fetzer stated he is not a psychologist.

4) An unstated assumption was that psychologists may deal in topics relating to human irrationality.

5) Since Dr. Fetzer considers himself expert in rationality but not psychology, I respectfully suggest he not jump to ascribing motives to people when they say something he does not consider rational.

I ask for no monetary compensation. I hope this is now clear enough for you to puzzle out.

Thanks for your attention. -- D.M.

Hey, that's not fair. I wanted a shot at that fifty bucks. Yo! JRC, Is that American or Euro? That's twenty five beers in my neckof the woods.

I had asked the derelict next to be at the bar what it means and before you explained it, after reading it and taking a shot of whiskey he said: "As a professor dude who hangs out at school and knows his xxxx on logic, he wants you to knows that there's a lot of assholes who are bigon logic and in certain areas while also being freaked out and off the walls nuts from your grandmothers oldest furniture to Charlie Chaplin. Not having been certified, be careful not to give spark to other nut cases when you see they lost it all compared to you."

Do I have to share the fifty bucks with him?

BK

Edited November 25, 2011 by William Kelly

[Daniel Meyer]

Noted. As an academic and expert on rationality, I would hope you have noticed that there have been no shortage of individuals who have made contributions to rationality and science in specific areas while at the same time holding superstitious/irrational views on other subjects, from classical antiquity to modern times. Not being a psychologist, perhaps some caution might be appropriate in assigning specific motives to other individuals when you perceive them to have moments when their rationality does not reach your personal standards.

quote name='Daniel Meyer' date='24 November 2011 - 09:35 PM' timestamp='1322188528' post='238831']

If anyone can translate the above

into plain english

I WILL GIVE YOU FIFTY BUCKS!

Mr. Carroll:

I apologize if my writing is confusing.

1)Dr Fetzer stated in his reply to me that he was an expert on rationality. For the purposes of my reply, I accepted his statement.

2) I noted that some people can be rational and contribute to human knowledge while still having beliefs which most other people would consider irrational. (For example: Pythagoras stating that the squares on the legs of a right triangle add up to the square on the hypotenuse, and eating beans is sinful.)

3) Dr. Fetzer stated he is not a psychologist.

4) An unstated assumption was that psychologists may deal in topics relating to human irrationality.

5) Since Dr. Fetzer considers himself expert in rationality but not psychology, I respectfully suggest he not jump to ascribing motives to people when they say something he does not consider rational.

I ask for no monetary compensation. I hope this is now clear enough for you to puzzle out.

Thanks for your attention. -- D.M.

Hey, that's not fair. I wanted a shot at that fifty bucks. Yo! JRC, Is that American or Euro? That's twenty five beers in my neckof the woods.

I had asked the derelict next to be at the bar what it means and before you explained it, after reading it and taking a shot of whiskey he said: "As a professor dude who hangs out at school and knows his xxxx on logic, he wants you to knows that there's a lot of assholes who are bigon logic and in certain areas while also being freaked out and off the walls nuts from your grandmothers oldest furniture to Charlie Chaplin. Not having been certified, be careful not to give spark to other nut cases when you see they lost it all compared to you."

Do I have to share the fifty bucks with him?

BK

Mr. Kelly: I was regretting sticking my toe into the discussion, but your reply made the ordeal worth while. A hearty thank you.

Mr. Carroll: Since I've already opted out of any share of the reward, you now owe Mr. Kelly $50.

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Noted. As an academic and expert on rationality, I would hope you have noticed that there have been no shortage of individuals who have made contributions to rationality and science in specific areas while at the same time holding superstitious/irrational views on other subjects, from classical antiquity to modern times. Not being a psychologist, perhaps some caution might be appropriate in assigning specific motives to other individuals when you perceive them to have moments when their rationality does not reach your personal standards.

quote name='Daniel Meyer' date='24 November 2011 - 09:35 PM' timestamp='1322188528' post='238831']

If anyone can translate the above

into plain english

I WILL GIVE YOU FIFTY BUCKS!

Mr. Carroll:

I apologize if my writing is confusing.

1)Dr Fetzer stated in his reply to me that he was an expert on rationality. For the purposes of my reply, I accepted his statement.

2) I noted that some people can be rational and contribute to human knowledge while still having beliefs which most other people would consider irrational. (For example: Pythagoras stating that the squares on the legs of a right triangle add up to the square on the hypotenuse, and eating beans is sinful.)

3) Dr. Fetzer stated he is not a psychologist.

4) An unstated assumption was that psychologists may deal in topics relating to human irrationality.

5) Since Dr. Fetzer considers himself expert in rationality but not psychology, I respectfully suggest he not jump to ascribing motives to people when they say something he does not consider rational.

I ask for no monetary compensation. I hope this is now clear enough for you to puzzle out.

Thanks for your attention. -- D.M.

Hey, that's not fair. I wanted a shot at that fifty bucks. Yo! JRC, Is that American or Euro? That's twenty five beers in my neckof the woods.

I had asked the derelict next to be at the bar what it means and before you explained it, after reading it and taking a shot of whiskey he said: "As a professor dude who hangs out at school and knows his xxxx on logic, he wants you to knows that there's a lot of assholes who are bigon logic and in certain areas while also being freaked out and off the walls nuts from your grandmothers oldest furniture to Charlie Chaplin. Not having been certified, be careful not to give spark to other nut cases when you see they lost it all compared to you."

Do I have to share the fifty bucks with him?

BK

Bill, I don't know how you'll come out on the fifty bucks, but had I been there, I'd certainly have popped for a round for you and your derelict ... and suggested a toast to Mr. Meyer. Delightful.

Bests,

Barb :-)

[David Lifton]

Agree with Robert.

I do not think that Tink's work is headed for a no -conspiracy kind of conclusion. How could it be with what he did with CE 399.

But I do disagree with him on this Morris film.

The idea that somehow Witt harbored this grudge against the Kennedys for over twenty years, and he then got it all out of him with a protest that no one except him could understand is just so hard to fathom on any level for normal people that only a completely compromised HSCA could accept it.

And that was the case.

Blakey was never going to accept the arguments made by the critics. Which is why he called a conference for them, let them talk on, and then assigned a staffer to go over their books and point out flaws in them. This is how he could come up with his Oswald did it for the Mob scenario. One of the truly nutty theories ever.

I have always had problems with the Witt testimony not just on the above, but how many people keep the same umbrella for 15 years? It does not appear that Witt did so since it appears to be the wrong one.

I also agree that to take Witt in isolation without the Cuban looking man is to curtail the picture. But further, why is their reaction so different than most others.? Why are they not running around looking for the origin of the shots?

Blakey went through this sorry exercise for the same reason he went after Jack White. For the same reason he sat through the fraudulent Guinn testimony (which today we may call perjury I think). FOr the same reason he took Buras and Delsa off the New Orleans beat. For the same reason he and Cornwell went out and "point aimed" rifles to get the interval problem under control.

And that is the real story here. How Witt is part of a pattern that the guys running the HSCA put in place to cover up what really happened.

And the story beyond that is that Sprague would not have let it happen. That is a story you will never see in the NY Times, since they were part of the program to get rid of Sprague.

Jim DiEugenio betrays an abysmal lack of historical understanding if he does not see the connection between Steve Witt's umbrella and Chamberlain's policies, and the nexus between that and President Kennedy.

If someone had shown up with a Swatsika, I'm sure no one would have a problem with that symbolism. The umbrella required a slightly greater sense of sophistication, but not that much.

My "excuse" for not seeing the connection (at that time) is that, at the time Tink's book was published, I simply was not that knowledgeable about Joseph P. Kennedy, his isolationism, his opposition to FDR's policies of extending a helping hand to Britain (via Lend Lease, etc.)

Consider this example: January 7, 1941, from the New York Times (11 months before Pearl Harbor, i.e. 12/7/41):

The headline: "Kennedy Jr. For Barter/ Calls such Dealing with Nazis Better than 'Total War'"

The story (date-lined Boston) reports that "Joseph P. Kennedy Jr., oldest son of the man who recently resigned as Ambassador to Great Britain, believes that the Unites Stats would be better off under a barter system with a Nazi-conquered Europe than engaging in a total war on the side of Great Britain."

The reason?

"All our trade would not be cut off if Britain lost," young Kennedy told a Ford Hall Folks meeting yesterday."

CONTINUING:

"He (referring to Joe Kennedy, JFK's older brother, who later died in the war, and who, on this occasion, was obviously echoing the view of his father) said that the policy of giving aid to Britain would demand in time that "we send an air force to Britain with pilots and battleships to convoy supplies and we shall be in the war, a total war which may last six or seven years."

The final sentence: "The American economy, he asserted, could not stand the strain of a total war."

NOW FLASH FORWARD TO JULY, 1960, in Los Angeles, and with LBJ battling with JFK for the Democratic Nomination for President.

On that occasion, and on the final day before the vote, LBJ attacked the nominee, Senator Kennedy, by attacking his father as being pro-Hitler. See the New York Times, July 14, 1960. Here are the key sentences:

QUOTE:

Hours earlier, Senator Johnson had found up his pre-balloting campaign for the nomination with a series of personal thrust at Senator Kennedy and his family.

The Texan, in high spirits and predicting victory, hit obliquely at the wealth of the Kennedys, at Senator Kennedy's record of McCarthyism, and at the pre-war attitude of Senator Kennedy's father toward Hitlerism.

It was in his remarks before the Washington State delegation this morning that he made an indirect attack on Joseph P. Kennedy, the Senator's father.

He said he had been a 'fighting liberal' in the Roosevelt era and a "working liberal' in the Truman Administration. He then declared: 'I was never any Chamberlain umbrella policy man. I never thought Hitler was right.'"

Note the phrase again: "I was never any Chamberlain umbrella policy man."

The Times then went on to explain:

"Senator Kennedy's father was Ambassador to Britain just before World War II, when Britain's Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, was pursuing a 'peace-in-our-time' policy in dealing with the German dictator Adolf Hitler. My Kennedy was a friend of Mr. Chamberlain and other Conservative leaders, but he was never directly involved in attempts to "appease" Hitler."

END OF QUOTE

With these quotes, it should be pretty obvious what Joseph P Kennedy's attitude was towards entering World War II, and the fact that even in July, 1960, why Lyndon Johnson would bring that up--and specifically mentioning Chamberlain's "umbrella"--in his fight for the Democratic Party nomination.

So no, I don't think it far fetched at all to see the nexus between Steve Witt's umbrella and the symbol of what he was protesting.

In fact, once it is pointed out, I think its pretty difficult to "not see" that connection.

And, as I pointed out, I happen to have a friend who knew the "umbrella man's" dentist--so I heard this entire story "from the dentist's chair."

Yet now, Jim DiEugenio, who teaches American history at a local high school, somehow seeks to evade all this, to avoid the historical record as well as the bona fides of Steve Witt, and espouse a most peculiar line: that by accepting Witt's account, the HSCA had some sort of hidden agenda.

"Blakey was never going to accept the arguments made by the critics," complains DiEugenio.

". . .the arguments made by the critics. . "??

What about the very obvious historical record?

It seems to me the validity of Steve Witt's account is rather obvious.

First of all, yes, that's him; and he was really there. Second, the umbrella in fact did represent Chamberlain's policies, and JFK's father was in fact a supporter of Chamberlain.

And that's really all there is to it.

(Or does DiEugenio subscribe to the notion that there was a gun in the umbrella, and that Witt was an assassin?)

By refusing to accept what is obvious, DiEugenio reveals that he is more interested in making a propaganda point, and clinging to a completely refuted conspiracy hypothesis, than going where the evidence leads.

DSL

11/24/11; 9:10 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Jim DiEugenio betrays an abysmal lack of historical understanding if he does not see the connection between Steve Witt's umbrella and Chamberlain's policies, and the nexus between that and President Kennedy.

Hilarious. First, David Lifton admonishes himself (and Tink) for failing to understand the alleged purpose of the Umbrella Man’s so-called protest until fifteen years after the fact, and then says Jim D. is ignorant because it is quite obvious what UM intended. Only one can be true David, so which is it?

I knew that Lifton fancies himself a superior intellect, because he never stops telling us so. I just had no idea that he is a comedian in his spare time. But his posts just keep getting funnier, albeit unintentionally so.

Who, exactly, does he think he fools with this parlor game?

[Don Jeffries]

This interview was published in the New York Times. What kind of interview about the JFK assassination would one expect to appear there? All mainstream media outlets adhere to the lone assassin mantra at all times. No information about this subject that didn't lead the reader or viewer to conclude that Oswald acted alone is going to appear on major American television networks on in newspapers like the Times.

Regardless of what Josiah Thompson's beliefs regarding this subject currently are, this interview is indistinguishable from any ever given, or to be given, by LNers like Bugliosi or Posner. "Crazy enough to be true?" That's the criteria used by the guy who loves to ridicule flim aterationists and other CTers who are too "extreme?" Why aren't any of their theories just "crazy enough" to be true? Gary Mack still claims privately to believe in conspiracy, but every appearance he's ever made on television (since he's been with the Sixth Floor Museum) features him mouthing lone nutter talking points exclusively. If Josiah is fortunate enough to appear on any forthcoming t.v. documentaries, my guess is that he will also adhere to lone nutter talking points.

RCD pointed out beautifully just how ridiculous the notion is that Witt was conducting some kind of protest against Joe Kennedy in Dealey Plaza. For a protest to be productive, the audience has to understand what it is you're protesting. But in this case, such illogic abounds everywhere. As more and more Americans become trapped in the idiocracy that has been created, this kind of irrationality will prevail and be accepted by the unthinking masses.

So let's keep score here, for Thompson and many other alleged CTers; the Umbrella Man was the innocent Witt, there were no mysterious deaths of witnesses, the hole in the back was higher than the real evidence indicates, there was no frontal throat wound, there was no hole in the windshield, the limo didn't stop or almost stop, the medical witnesses were mistaken about there being a huge hole in the back of JFK's head, all the films are genuine, witnesses like Craig, Carr and Worrell were not creditable, the Secret Service was not negligent, and on and on and on. The obvious question at this point is- for those of you who have discarded all these once crucial tenets of CT belief, exactly what is it at this point that leads you to believe there WAS a conspiracy?

I have lost all hope of the research community ever coming together. I don't really know how those of you that have studied this case for decades can swallow such nonsense. I don't know why you've lost your skepticism about much of the obviously suspicious stuff that led many of us to be interested in this case in the first place, and believe so strongly that we were being lied to. I don't know why so many of you have simultaneously become so skeptical about the most "extreme" CTers, and are so willing to call them "wingnuts" and other names, yet can have far more patience with the Gary Macks and John McAdams of the world.

Sometimes I wonder why I still care. It's been wonderful to be able to communicate with other researchers and students of the JFK assassination on this forum, but it's also been disillusioning. As a whole, the research community has become more centrist and vanilla, rejecting many of the canons of the early critics. This is in spite of the clear political corruption which has abounded in our society since November 22, 1963, and increased rapidly during the past ten years or so. I continue to take a radical view of this subject, and on political corruption in general. There is no reason for any sane, informed person not to believe that the JFK assassination was the result of a massive and powerful conspiracy.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Every now and then, David S. Lifton goes off the deep end and makes incredibly stupid remarks. He knows nothing about 9/11, yet he would base attacks upon me as though he were an expert. The key point I have driven home about the Pentagon is that there is no credible evidence that a Boeing 757 hit there--none! In an early study, based upon the evidence available to me then, I argued that the evidence--especially a study of the damage to the supporting columns, which, it explained, was consistent with a small plane having hit there but not a large one--raised the prospect that an A-3 Skywarrior may have flown toward the building and fired a missile to take out the budget experts and financial analysts trying to track the $2.3 trillion Rumsfeld announced was missing from the Pentagon budget the day before. Today I am neutral on that possibility, but he would have no idea why it may turn out to have been the case because he is an idiot with regard to 9/11 by pontificating about it when his ignorance is massive.

He is not an idiot regarding JFK, but it has always been easy to lampoon his beliefs about the body being stolen and subjected to alteration. I happen to agree with him on this, but for him to come to the defense of an absurd proposition being advanced in an obvious effort to undermine the existence of conspiracy in the death of JFK is more than a bit much: IT IS INCREDIBLY STUPID! The agency has cover stories for all its activities, where they needed one for the umbrella man. That the umbrella was being pumped up and down as a signal to tell the shooters around the plaza to keep firing because the target is still alive is not only overwhelmingly more plausible but substantiated by his coordination with the Cuban. While their faces have been obscured--which would not have been necessary if Lifton and Thompson were right--they look very much like Filipe Vidal Santiago and Roy Hargraves, who often operated together. THEY WERE OBVIOUSLY THERE TOGETHER, which Tink does not acknowledge and Lifton could not possibly explain.

Jim and I have had our disagreements, but on this point LIFTON COULD NOT BE MORE MISTAKEN. And for him to lend any degree of credibility to the first installment in Tink's attempt to take down JFK conspiracy theories is beyond belief. I fingered Tink a long time ago because, as a student of philosophy, I observed him committing fallacy after fallacy, which no genuine philosopher--who would be committed to truth--would ever do. Because others lack that background, I have done what I can to explain what's wrong with this guy, which many here--who understand fallacies about as well as Lifton does 9/11--have interpreted as being aggressive toward Tink because of our differences over the Zapruder film. Well, the proof that the film has been faked is abundant and compelling, as I have explained in study after study, which still does not sink in to some posting here. But Lifton's massive ego, which knows no bounds, has led him to commit a blunder that benefits Tink and undermines reasons that support conspiracy in JFK's assassination! Pathetic.

Oh please David. If I ever want someone to distort what I wrote, I will hire you.

Abysmal lack of historical understanding?

My MA is in Contemporary US History, which means WWII forward.

Like I don' t know about this stuff? I know enough about it to know that the famous quote in Merle Miller's book on Truman about Joe Kennedy bitterly attributing his lost son to FDR is a fraud.

What Joe Kennedy really wanted was the FDR-CHurchill original policy which was agreed to in the Atlantic Charter. Namely that the US would help England and Russia defeat the Germans without actually getting involved.

That policy was upset by Pearl harbor. But its an open question whether it would have succeeded.

See, the decisive front in Europe was not the west. It was the East. When Hitler invaded Russia, he had something like 80% of his divisions on the Russian front. When this invasion failed at Moscow, he then shifted it all in a stupid all or nothing gamble to the Stalingrad front. When that failed and Hitler's infantry divisions were pretty much decimated, he made another all or nothing gamble on the huge tank battle at Kirsk. When that failed the war in Europe was essentially over. The US entry into the war had almost nothing to do with either Stalingrad or Kirsk. So it is an acceptable argument to say that US entry into the European theater was not a decisive factor in defeating Hitler. It was Hitler himself who decided to invade Russia and then made four huge tactical errors en route to his defeat:

1.) Kiev

2.) Moscow

3.) Stalingrad

4.) Kirsk

After this, Hitler could not mount an offensive in the East, and he fought mainly a delaying action until 1945. This is why Stauffenberg took part in the plot to kill him. SO you are about as well informed as Mr. Witt on what happened in WW 2. And to beleive that ridiculous story, you have to be.

The rest of your post is indecipehrable to me. WHat are you saying, that somehow LBJ inspired Witt to do what he did? Is this part of your LBJ did it thesis? Man I hope not.

As per my coments on Blakey, if you think that Witt would have been there under Sprague, you are the one who is misinformed.THE difference between Blakey and Sprague is that Sprague embraced the critics, Blakey was out to undermine them. Sprague actually organized a seven hour slide presentation by Groden, Cutler, and the photo expert Sprague. He demanded that every staffer be there. Before that presentation, lawyer Sprague stood up and turned tot the assemblage and said the following: "I don't want anyone to leave until I leave and I do not plan on leaving until its over." At the close of this presentation, 12 of the 13 lawyers now agreed the JFK case was a conspiracy.

So the idea that Sprague would have done with Witt what Blakey did is completely inconsistent with the assembled record of who the men were and the angles they were pursuing. Witt was there to be part of Blakey's barrage against the critics. Anyone can see that if you study Blakey's record. Which I have. I wrote a two part essay on it for The Assassinations.

Its hard to believe that you do not understand that over thirty years later.

Edited November 25, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Don Jeffries]

It astonishes me that anyone believe Witt was the Umbrella Man. His HSCA testimony was widely ridiculed and lampooned in The Continuing Inquiry at the time, and it was my assumption that all CTers recognized his appearance and ridiculous story for what it was.

I'm curious- how many CTers who now believe this fairy tale originally doubted it? If so, what has caused you to change your views and accept it? If you accept it, please address RCD's points regarding the esoteric (and I'm being kind in describing it that way) nature of Witt's protest? If it was comprehensible to anyone over the years, why didn't anyone-even early LNers-recognize what Witt was doing? Why was no one saying, "Hey, that guy was obviously using his umbrella to protest Joe Kennedy's appeasement views! Everybody knows that!"

Saying it's "just crazy enough to be true" isn't good enough for some of us.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Daniel,

If you do not reject the many, many witness reports that the limo was brought to a halt (where some still seem

oblivious of the fact that it had to slow dramatically in coming to a halt, where some witnesses saw only part

of its deceleration but not all, as a function of where they were standing and their view point), then I have some

problem understanding why you appear reluctant to acknowledge that the film is a fraud. And for you to make

this petty complaint strikes me as petulant, given my efforts to be responsive to your concerns. So tell me: if

you accept the witnesses reports, then why in the world do you continue to harbor doubts about its alteration?

Jim

Daniel,

Thanks for your thoughtful post.

Thank you for your detailed reply, and your pointers to articles and links which I shall check out.

(...edit...)

Plenty of people insist the film is authentic, when it cannot possibly be authentic. It is not even self-consistent, since frame 374 shows the wound that has been obfuscated in earlier frames--where, according to Hollywood film restoration experts, it was painted over in black. Roderick Ryan, an expert on special effects, for which he won the Academy Award in 2000, told Noel Twyman back around 1996 that the "blob" and the blood spray had been painted in. They are both obviously right. I have no idea why you are willing to reject the witnesses who reported the limo stop, because they are abundant and compelling. The film was faked.

If the "you" is still addressing me, please do not assume I am "willing to reject" witnesses. I rather feel you are putting words into my mouth and assuming I hold opinions which I have not stated. This may not have been your intention, but I find it rather disconcerting.

I am not a psychologist, but I am an expert on rationality, which can be measured by objective standards.

Noted. As an academic and expert on rationality, I would hope you have noticed that there have been no shortage of individuals who have made contributions to rationality and science in specific areas while at the same time holding superstitious/irrational views on other subjects, from classical antiquity to modern times. Not being a psychologist, perhaps some caution might be appropriate in assigning specific motives to other individuals when you perceive them to have moments when their rationality does not reach your personal standards.

(...edit...)

Cheers, -- D.M.

[David Lifton]

Oh please David. If I ever want someone to distort what I wrote, I will hire you.

Abysmal lack of historical understanding?

My MA is in Contemporary US History, which means WWII forward.

Like I don' t know about this stuff? I know enough about it to know that the famous quote in Merle Miller's book on Truman about Joe Kennedy bitterly attributing his lost son to FDR is a fraud.

What Joe Kennedy really wanted was the FDR-CHurchill original policy which was agreed to in the Atlantic Charter. Namely that the US would help England and Russia defeat the Germans without actually getting involved.

That policy was upset by Pearl harbor. But its an open question whether it would have succeeded.

See, the decisive front in Europe was not the west. It was the East. When Hitler invaded Russia, he had something like 80% of his divisions on the Russian front. When this invasion failed at Moscow, he then shifted it all in a stupid all or nothing gamble to the Stalingrad front. When that failed and Hitler's infantry divisions were pretty much decimated, he made another all or nothing gamble on the huge tank battle at Kirsk. When that failed the war in Europe was essentially over. The US entry into the war had almost nothing to do with either Stalingrad or Kirsk. So it is an acceptable argument to say that US entry into the European theater was not a decisive factor in defeating Hitler. It was Hitler himself who decided to invade Russia and then made four huge tactical errors en route to his defeat:

1.) Kiev

2.) Moscow

3.) Stalingrad

4.) Kirsk

After this, Hitler could not mount an offensive in the East, and he fought mainly a delaying action until 1945. This is why Stauffenberg took part in the plot to kill him. SO you are about as well informed as Mr. Witt on what happened in WW 2. And to beleive that ridiculous story, you have to be.

The rest of your post is indecipehrable to me. WHat are you saying, that somehow LBJ inspired Witt to do what he did? Is this part of your LBJ did it thesis? Man I hope not.

As per my coments on Blakey, if you think that Witt would have been there under Sprague, you are the one who is misinformed.THE difference between Blakey and Sprague is that Sprague embraced the critics, Blakey was out to undermine them. Sprague actually organized a seven hour slide presentation by Groden, Cutler, and the photo expert Sprague. He demanded that every staffer be there. Before that presentation, lawyer Sprague stood up and turned tot the assemblage and said the following: "I don't want anyone to leave until I leave and I do not plan on leaving until its over." At the close of this presentation, 12 of the 13 lawyers now agreed the JFK case was a conspiracy.

So the idea that Sprague would have done with Witt what Blakey did is completely inconsistent with the assembled record of who the men were and the angles they were pursuing. Witt was there to be part of Blakey's barrage against the critics. Anyone can see that if you study Blakey's record. Which I have. I wrote a two part essay on it for The Assassinations.

Its hard to believe that you do not understand that over thirty years later.

After all your largely irrelevant bluster about World War II, and your "history lessons" which wanders all over the place and does not address the main point, what you do not seem to understand is that (a) Steven Witt was in fact the man in Dealey Plaza, and (b ) that the reasons for his umbrella are exactly what he stated: as a sign of protest of the appeasement policies endorsed by his father, Joseph P. Kennedy.

This is not rocket science. These are just plain facts.

Apparently, you want to hang on to a thoroughly discredited conspiracy hypothesis--and this is not the only case where I've seen you engage in this kind of behavior.

You refuse to deal with the issues that are truly important--body alteration and Z film alteration--and dwell on the insignificant.

But back to Mr. Witt:

If you were to ask whether I was annoyed with the manner in which Blakey et al used the occasion to ridicule the notion that the umbrella man was an assassin, of course i was. Yes, I was plenty annoyed. Because I am well aware of the problem of the Blakey investigation.

As for the lecture you talk about: Sprague arranged for me to address the entire staff on the JFK side of the investigation, and I went through a multi-hour slide presentation regarding the head snap, the grassy knoll evidence, and the single bullet theory. I (and writer Robert Sam Anson also met privately with Sprague). I think Sprague was a good man, determined to get at the truth. I'm sorry he was replaced.

DSL

11:20 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

[David Lifton]

It astonishes me that anyone believe Witt was the Umbrella Man. His HSCA testimony was widely ridiculed and lampooned in The Continuing Inquiry at the time, and it was my assumption that all CTers recognized his appearance and ridiculous story for what it was.

I'm curious- how many CTers who now believe this fairy tale originally doubted it? If so, what has caused you to change your views and accept it? If you accept it, please address RCD's points regarding the esoteric (and I'm being kind in describing it that way) nature of Witt's protest? If it was comprehensible to anyone over the years, why didn't anyone-even early LNers-recognize what Witt was doing? Why was no one saying, "Hey, that guy was obviously using his umbrella to protest Joe Kennedy's appeasement views! Everybody knows that!"

Saying it's "just crazy enough to be true" isn't good enough for some of us.

Please provide credible evidence that the man who testified before the HSCA and identified himself as Steven Witt was not who he said he was.

Note what I requested--not some restatement of your suspicions, but genuine evidence that he was not who he said he was, and/or that his entire account was a fraud.

Do you have any real data--or are you, too, clinging to a thoroughly refuted conspiracy hypothesis?

Alleging something was a "fairy tale" is not evidence.

DSL

11/24/11 - 11:49 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

[Don Jeffries]

David,

So you recognized the obviously staged nature of Witt's HSCA testimony, which Blakey used to discredit yet another CT tenet, but you somehow think the guy who played the main role was legitimate?

Again, how is Witt's protest, which even Joe Kennedy and Neville Chamberlain wouldn't have comprehended if they'd been in Dealey Plaza, to be believed? Why is it likely that this "just crazy enough to be true" nonsense is more credible than the notion CTers had for years, that the guy holding and pumping an umbrella on a sunny day, in front of a limousine while a U.S. president is being assassinated, was suspicious and probably connected in some way to the crime? How are the actions of the Umbrella Man afterwards, in conjunction with a male companion, consistent with this incomprehensible protest of his? Maybe he was further protesting against Old Joe's WWII views by refusing to react normally, like everyone else in the crowd, to the events unfolding before him?

If we discount the obviously suspicious nature of the Umbrella Man, the string of mysterious deaths of those connected to the case, and the clear negligence of the Secret Service agents, for example, then we're discounting some of the best indicators of conspiracy, imho. What's more important, there is no rational reason to discount these kinds of suspicions. No credible evidence has been produced by LNers to discount them, yet "just crazy enough" seems to be enough for some of you to temper your views.

CTers should be able to recognize obvious indications of conspiracy.

[David Von Pein]

...that strikes me as odd. As does why the Cuban looking guy would be raising his arm in the air.

Apparently waving at the President during a public motorcade is considered suspicious activity in Jim DiEugenio's eyes. Amazing.

Edited November 25, 2011 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

Some of the responses in this thread are most revealing, IMO. They reveal exactly WHY the main stream media refuses to take conspiracy theorists seriously. Here we have something that appears sinister--a man pumping an umbrella just as Kennedy gets hit, that was subsequently explained.

But some simply refuse to let go of any bit of sinister they can find. They refuse to believe Witt's explanation and assume he's a xxxx.

Well, here's an article on the Umbrella Man written decades before the shooting. The "Umbrella Man" in the article was, drum roll please, Neville Chamberlain.

Umbrella Man

Well, that solves that. Chamberlain WAS associated with umbrellas in the public's mind and Witt's "protest" may very well have struck a chord with Kennedy...something like "Yeah, you're the president now, but I know where you're from, buddy!" Kinda like a tea-bagger holding up an African voodoo-doll as Obama drove by...

As far as Blakey's orchestrating Witt's appearance, well, that does seems a bit of a reach... There were, after all, public appeals for Umbrella Man to come forward. There were, after all, a heap of researchers finding the Umbrella Man sinister. And yet not one of them EVER found any dirt on Witt that would provide us a reason why he, of all people, would come forward with a bogus story. And not one of them EVER did the research to prove it wasn't Witt in the picture.

I mean, unlike the "experts" Blakey used to sell the single-bullet theory, etc, Witt was not paid to come forward. He didn't get to pump up a resume through his appearance. His testimony was, moreover, quite embarrassing. So why did he do it? I mean, if he wasn't the real Umbrella Man, then someone else was...someone whose story could very well be as "innocent" as Witt's story. So why would Witt come forward if he wasn't Umbrella Man when there was a strong possibility someone else would come forward and PROVE him a xxxx?

Or, are we supposed to believe that Witt was Witt-ing of the plot to kill Kennedy, and KNEW the real Umbrella Man would never come forward?

Well, where's the evidence for that?

Sorry. The "I believe Witt's a xxxx because I don't believe his explanation for opening his umbrella" argument just doesn't work. If someone were to make up the theory that Jackie wore pink to help put JFK's head in silhouette, and then someone discover she claimed she thought pink was the traditional color of Dallas, would we then claim JACKIE was part of the plot because, well, by golly, we find it hard to believe she thought pink was the traditional color of Dallas? I hope not.

It's time to let go of the GARBAGE, people, and the Umbrella Man theory is GARBAGE. Just as the "Oswald was in the Altgens photo" theory is GARBAGE...

Now, if someone were to research Witt, and find he worked for ONI, or was friends with De Mohrenschildt, or some such thing, this aspect of the case could be pulled back from the trash heap. But I'm betting no one will do such a thing.

Just as I'm betting no one enamored with the Umbrella Man theory will follow-up on any of the many leads contained in my own research...

Oh, what leads, you ask? Well, here's one. On Kennedy's right lateral x-ray, two fractures intersect. Getting the medical establishment to discuss this "intersection" could only lead to a thorough re-interpretation of the evidence. Here's why...

From patspeer.com, chapter 18:

The belief fractures stop when they encounter pre-existing fractures dates back to 1903, when first proposed by a German pathologist named Puppe. Puppe’s Rule, as it has come to be known, has been accepted ever since. There is nothing controversial about it. The Oxford Handbook of Forensic Medicine, 2011, notes "Puppe's Rule is that fracture lines resulting from the second injury will not cross those from the first, thereby helping identification of which fracture occurred first. The rule has been recently applied to analysis of radial fracture lines caused by multiple bullet wounds to the head." And yet, not one of the Clark Panel, Rockefeller Commission, and HSCA’s radiology consultants mentioned that, "Oh yeah, the x-rays demonstrate that Kennedy's supposed exit wound by his temple pre-existed his supposed entrance wound in the cowlick."

Now, that's not to say that no one noticed. According to notes taken by Doug Horne, Dr. Douglas Ubelaker, the forensic anthropologist consulted by the ARRB in 1996, "observed that one fracture line occurred prior to the other, because the longer one stopped the shorter one." While Horne's notes failed to reveal which lines intersected, and which came first, one look at the x-ray makes this pretty obvious.

Edited November 25, 2011 by Pat Speer